yields and selected quality parameters of winter wheat

Agricultura – Ştiinţă şi practică
nr. 1-2 (69-70]/2009
YIELDS AND SELECTED QUALITY PARAMETERS OF
WINTER WHEAT (TRITICUM ESTIVUM L.) IN ORGANIC
CROPPING SYSTEM AS AFFECTED BY FORECROPS
IN THE YEARS 2006-2008
Zuzana Lehocká, Marta Klimeková
Plant Production Research Centre – Research Institute of Plant Production, Bratislavská cesta 122,
921 68 Piešťany, Slovakia, [email protected]
Abstract: The aim of the study was to evaluate yields and selected qualitative parameters of winter
wheat cultivated after three different forecrops in the years 2006-2008. Stationary field experiment
was established on a loamy luvi-haplic chernozem in a maize–barley growing region in South Western Slovakia. The tested variety Bardotka is known as a variety with good content of gluten and
high values of sedimentation test. The weather conditions statistically modified qualitative parameters
of winter wheat grain (crude protein, wet gluten, fall number, sedimentation test, ** P<0.01). The
forecrops statistically significantly influenced grain yields and thousand-grain weight (** P<0.05).
The average grain yield was 5.99 t/ha. The average yield after alfalfa was 6.48 t/ha and 5.86 t/ha after
spring barley (winter wheat was amended by farm manure) and winter wheat yield after pea was 5.65
t/ha. The highest crude protein content as well as wet gluten content, fall number and sedimentation
test were after spring barley. The lowest values of all selected qualitative parameters were determined
after pea. In the years 2006-2008 the most suitable quantitative parameters of winter wheat grown in
the organic farming system were obtained after alfalfa. The best effect on the qualitative parameters of
winter wheat had spring barley followed by farm yard manure application.
Key words: winter wheat, forecrops, grain yields, qualitative parameters
INTRODUCTION
Today we can not speak about economical development without taking into
consideration the environment. The development of agriculture must fit into the potential of
the ecosystems and must not harm the consumers’ health.
Organic farming offers an alternative that can eliminate many of the environmental
problems of conventional agriculture. Organic farming is one of the expanding agrarian
sectors in the Slovak Republic. Significant environmental benefits of organic farming have
already been described (e.g. Hole et al. 2005). However there are also increasing conflicts,
both between long term conservation of abiotic resources and biodiversity on the one hand
and short term economic production constraints on the other, as well as between different
objectives of nature conservation (Bachinger, Stein-Bachinger, Fuchs, 2006).
High flour yield of good baking value is principally determined by the raw material quality.
The technological value of wheat grain is predominantly relative to the genetic properties of
the cultivated cultivars. Their influence is, however, greatly modified by the cropping
-13-
Agricultura – Ştiinţă şi practică
nr. 1-2 (69-70]/2009
management and weather conditions prevalent during the vegetative period as well as the
type of soil, fertilisation, etc. (Gil, Narkiewicz-Jodko, 1998). The importance of crop rotation
should also not be neglected because winter wheat belongs to crops that are very demanding
as far as the forecrops are concerned. All aforementioned factors can be, to a certain extent,
influenced by the grower. There are some factors that cannot be controlled in a direct way.
They involve both the amount and the time distribution of rainfalls in the course of the
growing season. In this context the problem of the occurrence of draught periods and their
impacts on plant production is being more and more discussed, also under the climatic
conditions of Central Europe. High weather conditions variability has influenced the yields
and qualitative parameters of winter wheat in the Slovak conditions also during the
investigated years.
The aim of the paper was to evaluate the effect of three forecrops on grain yields and
selected qualitative parameters of winter wheat variety Bardotka in the years 2006 -2008.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
The stationary field experiment was established in the year 1990 at Borovce near
Piešťany town (western part of the Slovak Republic) on a loamy luvi-haplic Chernozem with
good content of available potassium, medium content of available phosphorus and high
content of available magnesium. The areas has a continental climate with the average annual
temperature 9.2 0C (15.5 0C during the vegetation period) and mean annual precipitation 593
mm (358 mm during the vegetation period). The area is classified as maize-barley growing
region. The experimental design consists in a split plot arrangement with two replications.
There were two six strips of field tested in the experiment: a1) alfalfa - alfalfa – winter wheat
– sugar beet – spring barley – maize for grain, a2) maize for grain – spring barley – winter
wheat - spring barley – pea - winter wheat. Farm yard manure at the rate of 40 t/ha was
applied after spring barley. The harvested area of one plot represented 75 m2 (3x25 m). The
agro technical operations were realized in accordance with the Law NR SR No. 421/2004
about organic farming. The model variety of winter wheat was variety Bardotka with the
quality standard E, the sowing rate was 500 viable kernels per square meter at a row distance
of 125 mm. Experimental plots were harvested at full maturity. Crude protein content was
determined by the Dumas method (% N x 5.7) according to the Slovak Technical Standard
STN 46 1011. Selected indicators of baking quality included: test weight of grain according
to the Slovak Technical Standard STN 46 1011-5, sedimentation index according to Zeleny
(STN – ISO 5529), fall number according to the STN – ISO 3093, wet gluten content
according to the STN 461011-9.
Obtained results were evaluated by variance analysis, differences testing by
Tukey test.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weather conditions are listed in the table 1.
-14-
Agricultura – Ştiinţă şi practică
nr. 1-2 (69-70]/2009
Table 1
Weather conditions in Borovce near Piešťany in the years 2006-2008
The three-year results showed that the average grain yield was 6.00 t/ha (Table 2). In
the years 2006 and 2007 there were not significant differences in the obtained grain yields of
winter wheat. Significantly higher grain yields were in the year 2008 in comparison with the
years 2006 and 2007 (** P0.01).
The highest grain yield was obtained after alfalfa (6.48 t / ha), followed by spring
barley (5.86 t / ha) and the lowest grain yield was after pea (5.65 t / ha). Lower yields after
alfalfa in the years 2006 and 2007 were caused by the precipitation deficiency and its very
unequal distribution in the spring time. Therefore alfalfa could not use its potential to fix
atmospheric nitrogen and its ability to leave a bulk of crop residues with good quality for the
further crop growing.
Table 2
Grain yields of winter wheat, variety Bardotka in the years 2006-2008 (t/ha)
Forecrop/Year
2006
Alfalfa
5.96
Pea
5.09
Spring barley
5.47
Average
5,51a
LSD 0.05 forecrop 0.71; LSD 0.01 year 0.99
2007
5.91
4.85
4.92
5.22a
2008
7.58
7.01
7.18
7.26b
Average
6.48a
5.65b
5.86ab
5.99
The average grain yield after pea was 5.65 t/ha. It was statistically lower than the
average grain yield obtained after alfalfa, the difference represented 9.6 %. Winter wheat
belongs to crops that are very demanding for a good forecrop. Repeated growing of winter
wheat after cereal caused lower yields. This decrease may be also dependent on concentration
of cereals in the crop rotation and might be compensated by organic fertilizers or green
manure application. These factors arrangement may also cause increased pressure of
infectious diseases and weeds suppression.
We applied 40 t/ha of farm yard manure after spring barley in the autumn period. The
average grain yield of winter wheat after spring barley was 5.86 t/ha, the highest grain yield
was in the year 2008 (7.18 t/ha).
The average grain yield was higher after spring barley (40 t/ha of farm yard manure
applied in the autumn period after spring barley harvest as a compensation of deteriorative
effect of this forecrop) than after pea (3.72 % difference).
-15-
Agricultura – Ştiinţă şi practică
nr. 1-2 (69-70]/2009
The average thousand-grain weight (TGW) in the experiment was 44.18g. This
indicator was statistically influenced by the forecrop. The year conditions did not influence
statistically significantly TGW. After the forecrop pea there was statistically significantly
higher TGW (46.20 g) than after spring barley (42.20 g).
Table 3
TGW of winter wheat in the years 2006-2008 (g)
Forecrop/Year
Alfalfa
Pea
Spring barley
Average
LSD 0.05 forecrop 3.46
2006
44.75
46.25
40.95
43.98a
2007
43.05
45.75
44.90
44.57a
2008
44.65
46.60
40.75
44.00a
Average
44.15ab
46.20b
42.20a
44.18
The weather conditions influenced significantly not only grain yields of winter wheat
but also qualitative parameters of winter wheat in our conditions. Our investigations are in
line with Muchova (2001) who confirmed the strong impact of weather conditions on almost
all characters of quality of winter wheat mainly in the ripening stage.
The average value of crude protein was 10.02 %. The highest value of crude protein
was after spring barley (10.73 %). Winter wheat has high consumption of nitrogen, mainly in
the second period of the vegetation period and in the ripening stage. We can very hardly
influence that in organic farming systems by qualitative additional fertilizing by commercial
nitrogen fertilizers. The utilizing of nitrogen in the process of mineralization might be
influenced very strongly by the weather conditions.
Due to the favourable weather conditions distribution (precipitations and
temperatures) during the year 2008 we reached the optimum nutrient regime in the period
where qualitative parameters of winter wheat were formed. The farm yard manure application
after spring barley positively influenced soil adsorption complex properties. Nitrogen releases
from farm yard manure and subsequent uptake probably caused higher content of protein as
well as wet gluten in the grain of winter wheat after spring barley compared with the other
two forecrops. On the contrary in the year 2007 the deficit of rainfalls in the months April
and May may have caused a decreased nitrogen mineralization, resulting in a lower content
of crude protein and wet gluten content.
There were lower grain yields after spring barley in the years 2006-2008 however the
qualitative parameters (crude protein, wet gluten, sedimentation test) were the highest in
comparison with the qualitative parameters of winter wheat obtained after pea and alfalfa.
Table 4
Crude protein content (%) and wet gluten content (%) after three forecrops in the years 2006-2008
Forecrop / Year
Alfalfa
Pea
Spring barley
Average
2006
9.61
9.23
11.07
9.97
Crude protein (%)
2007
2008
10.80
9.92
9.16
9.32
9.07
12.06
9.67
10.43
Average
10.11
9.24
10.73
10.02
LSD 0.05 forecrop 0.71; LSD 0.01 year 0.99
-16-
2006
20.25
18.75
26.20
21.73
Wet gluten (%)
2007
2008
25.35
20.30
19.20
17.30
17.65
29.50
20.73
22.37
Average
21.97
18.42
24.45
21.61
Agricultura – Ştiinţă şi practică
nr. 1-2 (69-70]/2009
The data shown in Table 4 indicate that the average value of wet gluten was 21.61 %.
The highest content of wet gluten was after spring barley (24.45 %). The highest value of wet
gluten after spring barley was in the year 2008 (29.50 %).
The lowest values of crude protein as well as wet gluten were observed after pea compared
with the other forecrops.
The enzymes activity in the grain is expressed by the fall number. A grain with the
fall number over 400 s requires increased activity of amylolytic enzymes. In our experiment
the average value of fall number was 382 s. The most suitable values of this indicator were
observed after alfalfa (379 s) and pea (368 s).
The sedimentation test according to Zeleny was in average 41.8 ml. There were
lower values of sedimentation test after pea (38.8 ml) comparing alfalfa (41.0 ml) and spring
barley (45.5 ml). The weather conditions influenced the values of sedimentation test. The
most suitable weather conditions were in the year 2006 (47.5 ml), the average content of
sedimentation test represented 41.9 ml.
Table 5
Falling number (s) and Sedimentation test (ml) after three forecrops in the years 2006-2008
Fo recro p / Yea r
Alfa lfa
Pea
Sprin g b arle y
Avera ge
2 0 06
3 37
3 28
3 82
3 49
LSD 0.01 forecrop 28.15
LSD 0.01 year 28.15
LSD 0.05 year x forecrop 49.9
Fa ll n u m b er (s )
20 0 7
2 00 8
42 2
3 78
40 1
3 75
40 1
4 11
40 8
3 88
Avera ge
379
368
398
382
2 00 6
44 .0
40 .5
58 .0
47 .5
Sed im e nta tion
20 07
4 3.0
3 4.0
3 1.5
3 6.2
te st (m l)
2 00 8
Ave rag e
36 .0
4 1.0
42 .0
3 8.8
47 .0
4 5.5
42 .0
4 1.9
LSD 0.01 year 9.70
LSD 0.05 year x forecrop 17.19
CONCLUSIONS
 Weather conditions of the analysed years statistically modified qualitative parameters
of winter wheat grain (crude protein, wet gluten, fall number, sedimentation test, **
P<0.01).
 Forecrops significantly influenced grain yields and TGW (** P<0.05) in the years
2006 – 2008.
 Interaction year x forecrop modified fall number and sedimentation test of winter
wheat (** P<0.05).
 The most suitable quantitative parameters of winter wheat grain were obtained after
alfalfa.
 The best effect on the qualitative parameters of winter wheat had the forecrop spring
barley followed by farm yard manure application.
Acknowledgments. The results were obtained within the frame of the Project 2006
UO 27/091 05 01/091 05 10
-17-
Agricultura – Ştiinţă şi practică
nr. 1-2 (69-70]/2009
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bachinger J., Stein-Bachinger, K., Fuchs, S. (2006): Ecological and agronomic evaluation of
crop rotations in organic farming systems. Paper presented at Joint Organic Congress,
Odense, Denmark, May 30-31, 2006. Orgprints ID Number: 7206.
Gil Z., Narkiewicz-Jodko, M. (1998): The effect of the fore-crop upon winter wheat milling
and baking values. Nahrung 42, Nr. 5, p. 302 – 303.
Hole D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D. Alexander, I.H. Grice, P.V. and Evans, A.D. (2005):
Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Elsevier, Biological Conservation 122, 113-130.
Muchová Z. (2001): Faktory ovplyvňujúce technologickú kvalitu pšenice a jej potravinárske
využitie. SPU v Nitre, 2001, ISBN 80-7137-923-9.
Slovak Technical Standard – STN 46 1100-2
Slovak Technical Standard – STN 46 1011-5
Slovak Technical Standard – STN 46 1011-9
-18-